Vintage Singer Machines

[jruley]

BTW, I may remember incorrectly, it's a very long time since I sat at one, but doesn't a hand operated machine also lack a reverse stitching facility, and you have to pull the layers toward you sharply to stitch over the seam again to lock it?

There is nothing about a hand crank that prevents such machines from sewing in reverse.  It is true that many older ones do not have the necessary cam.
I know of two ways to lock the ends of the seam down without reversing:

- Take a couple of stitches and stop.  Raise the presser foot and pull the work back to the beginning.  Stitch over the first stitches, and continue sewing.  This is usually done at the beginning of the seam.

- Stitch to the end of the seam, then raise the presser foot with the needle down.  Turn the work 180 degrees and lower the foot.  Take a few stitches over the seam.  This is usually done at the end of the seam, but can also be used at the beginning if you start a short distance from the edge.

Call me a Luddite if you wish, but I find either of these methods superior to using the reverse function to secure the ends of the seam, and less likely to ball up the bobbin thread.  I only use reverse on my electric machine to save time.  Not that that isn't a good reason for many people.

Anyway, your assertion that a hand cranked machine is the best where accuracy and control are concerned I cannot support.

I merely asserted that:

I find it hard to beat a hand crank machine

To be fair, I've never sewn on an industrial model.  As a home based hobbyist I have no place for one, nor the skills to maintain it.

[theresa in tucson]

As a hobby stitcher, I have three of the old black Singer machines; a 201, a 15-91 and a 221 Featherweight, as well as a Bernina 930.  Like Jruley says, there is no room for an industrial, although I would love to have one.  And I sincerely covet the old Singer harness machine the cobbler around the corner has in his repair shop.  There is a reason those old machines are still around - they get the job done, are almost unbreakable, and can usually be maintained by the operator.

[jruley]

A person who is confident about machines and/or has people IRL to consult doesn't understand the apprehension of someone who doesn't have that background.  My family had to hire a handyman to help us assemble our IKEA furniture.  He said we weren't the first. :-) Now, IKEA offers an assembly service.

I mean, the machine could explode.

You might want to have the seller run the machine in your presence, and show you how to oil it.  This will decrease the number of available machines and drive up the price, but reduce your chance of buying a "dud".  If you must buy sight unseen, make sure the seller knows the machine is for use and not display, and will accept returns.

Aside from a fracture caused by dropping the thing on your foot, the only real safety issue with these old machines is electrical shock.  That will not be a problem if the cord is in good condition, and if you unplug the machine before working on the motor.  Unless someone has been storing gunpowder in the base compartment, there is nothing in the machine that can explode.

[Tailleuse]

A person who is confident about machines and/or has people IRL to consult doesn't understand the apprehension of someone who doesn't have that background.  My family had to hire a handyman to help us assemble our IKEA furniture.  He said we weren't the first. :-) Now, IKEA offers an assembly service.

I mean, the machine could explode.

You might want to have the seller run the machine in your presence, and show you how to oil it.  This will decrease the number of available machines and drive up the price, but reduce your chance of buying a "dud".  If you must buy sight unseen, make sure the seller knows the machine is for use and not display, and will accept returns.

Aside from a fracture caused by dropping the thing on your foot, the only real safety issue with these old machines is electrical shock.  That will not be a problem if the cord is in good condition, and if you unplug the machine before working on the motor.  Unless someone has been storing gunpowder in the base compartment, there is nothing in the machine that can explode.

Thanks!

[Tailleuse]

As a hobby stitcher, I have three of the old black Singer machines; a 201, a 15-91 and a 221 Featherweight, as well as a Bernina 930.  Like Jruley says, there is no room for an industrial, although I would love to have one.  And I sincerely covet the old Singer harness machine the cobbler around the corner has in his repair shop.  There is a reason those old machines are still around - they get the job done, are almost unbreakable, and can usually be maintained by the operator.

Thank you, Theresa.

[Tailleuse]

BTW, I may remember incorrectly, it's a very long time since I sat at one, but doesn't a hand operated machine also lack a reverse stitching facility, and you have to pull the layers toward you sharply to stitch over the seam again to lock it?

There is nothing about a hand crank that prevents such machines from sewing in reverse.  It is true that many older ones do not have the necessary cam.
I know of two ways to lock the ends of the seam down without reversing:

- Take a couple of stitches and stop.  Raise the presser foot and pull the work back to the beginning.  Stitch over the first stitches, and continue sewing.  This is usually done at the beginning of the seam.

This method is how I learned to tack on older industrial Singers that had no reverse stitch. The only difference is I sewed the whole seam, cut the threads, and then went over the beginning and the end. (I wasn't told to cut the threads and remove the piece from the machine, I did that on my own.)

I like the reverse stitch feature and use it when available, but there are times when the reverse stitch throws off the line a little bit. One method I learned for sewing a welt pocket seam involved leaving long threads, checking that the two lines were the same length, and if necessary adding one stitch manually pulling out one.Then the two threads were threaded into a needle and the seam was hand-tacked.

I was taught another method for sewing a welt pocket in which we sewed a box.  To finish it, the starting stitch was overlapped because that was more accurate. I'm sure there were other occasions when the instructions were to overlap, not use the reverse stitch.

[jruley]

One method I learned for sewing a welt pocket seam involved leaving long threads, checking that the two lines were the same length, and if necessary adding one stitch manually pulling out one.Then the two threads were threaded into a needle and the seam was hand-tacked.

No question, this is the neatest way to finish the ends of a line of stitching.  Of course it's also the most time-consuming...

[Greger]

Just tie a square knot and then add a tailors knot and snip the thread. Leaves the least amount of bulk. Knew that since I was a tiny boy. You can read the finer details  in Jane Rhineharts book.

Poulin tells of another machine method for machines that have no reverse.

[Tailleuse]

One method I learned for sewing a welt pocket seam involved leaving long threads, checking that the two lines were the same length, and if necessary adding one stitch manually pulling out one.Then the two threads were threaded into a needle and the seam was hand-tacked.

No question, this is the neatest way to finish the ends of a line of stitching.  Of course it's also the most time-consuming...

It is. :-) But it affords more control, which is especially helpful for inexperienced people.

[Simmons]

One method I learned for sewing a welt pocket seam involved leaving long threads, checking that the two lines were the same length, and if necessary adding one stitch manually pulling out one.Then the two threads were threaded into a needle and the seam was hand-tacked.

No question, this is the neatest way to finish the ends of a line of stitching.  Of course it's also the most time-consuming...

The best things comesto those who wait.

[Henry Hall]

Lepus seems to have departed  Shame. I would second his view that the modern industrials are very easy to control now that so many are sold with brushless servo-motors rather than clutch motors. You can go stitch-for-stitch if you want to. They also have far more power for putting the needle through something like a jeans hem where hem meets the lapped seam. Even the best old domestics sometimes fail with this; or if they do go through they might skip a stitch.

The best domestic machine I've done hems like that with is a 1950, hand-cranked, Pfaff 30.

I like the domestics I have and the Pfaff 130 sees quite a bit of action, mainly because it is a very good zig-zag machine. Other than that I really love using my Juki industrial because it is powerful and accurate. It's an older DL-555 model.

[Hendrick]

I love vintage Singers, but only recently... Because I'm not a great machinist I like sewing with old machines. I collected quite a few over the past years, appart from a brand new Pfaff 30 that was sitting in storage for over 50 odd years... At school we had industrials that I quickly learned to avoid, as well developing a profound hatred of clutch motors. I own a Pfaff 461 Industrial, never use it... I find they only really want to "stitch straight", dont like you to curve and manouvre your piece. I loved the 90 series Pfaffs, so I bought a 92 zigzagger that sews beautifully. A few years ago, I ran in to the straight stitch version of that series, a Pfaff 8, and took it home up for 15 Euro; if ever you find one, do not hesitate! I have a tiny 40 years old baby lock (made by Yuki) that makes a gorgeous stitch and is adjustable in stitch length, as well as stitch width, so it can do "false festooning". Threading this thing is a diabolical chore, but it is still worth it. Recently I got my dad's old Pfaff 30 out and it sews like new, is quiet and I love the powerfull 180 watt motor on it. The penetration power of this machine is amazing and it is quite fast too. A tailor nearby called me a few months ago that he was moving to Southern Europe, to live with his children. Asked me if I was interested in his inventory and machines. I bought a Singer 15-91 and a Singer 99 for 25 Euro each and they are in a great state. When I asked him what he used the 99 for he told me that the hole in the stitch plate was so tiny that it was perfect for alterations on shirts. Generally I think that, with their narrow transport and presser feet, Singers are the most manouvreable machines and their transport have an "earlier pull and grip" than Pfaff machines. Also, Singers need less tension to give a clean stitch. For straight and top stitching I stay away from zigzaggers.
Other fantastic machines, domestic and Industrial or semi, are Gritzner and Adler. The Adler "Gewerbemaschinen" are some of the best engineered machines that were ever built, but hard to find. That said, my storage is full for now...   I attached a pic of my dad's Pfaff, in his honour, Cheers

[Henry Hall]

Hendrick, I tend to fall the other way. I prefer the old Pfaff machines. I also have two 30s and a 31 in an art deco cabinet (made in 1931) which is a treadle machine.
There are many variables so its hard to generalise, but I've never had a Pfaff go wrong during use. No thread breakages because the tension was wrong or thread-nests in the hook. One of the 30s is a hand--crank model which I use for repairing my jeans.

The Singer 15 I have is an strange one. It has the hallmarks of a 15-88, with spoked hand-wheel and other features, but it threads like a 15-90. At the Kilbowie factory they seemed to be producing 15-90s with spoked wheels and no potted motor. There are many model anomalies like these.
This has the knee lever with the motor housed in the accessory case to the right. It's a very nice machine, smooth stitches, but the lever for the stitch feels weedy and thin compared to the Pfaff's chunky example.

As I've said before here the Pfaff 130 is a machine I use regularly. Sometimes I just set it up for the zig-zag, but then carry on using it rather than go to the industrial Juki in the other room. It can handle most jobs and is a pleasure to use.

[Hendrick]

Hi Henry,

As builds, there is no discussion whatsoever; the Pfaff 30, 130 and 30-31 are only at best equaled by the 201 Singer. It's just that I love the narrow transports of the Singers, must be a personal thing I guess. Technically, the rotary hook and bobbin  in these Pfaffs is the base of any modern Industrial machine, I am amazed by the speed of the 30. And indeed, the stitch regulators on Singers feel very "seemstress like". All in all, I don't like the Industrial Pfaff I have and apart from the clutch motor I don't like the stitych it forms. Maybe I was just born a slow stitcher? Your Singer 15 is an "intermediate"machine I guess, heard about them. But then, nearly all 201's in the US were built with potted motors, whereas in Europe most were sold with belted motors, or a belted motor was often added later...

Regards, Henk

[TTailor]

http://www.mrtaylor.co.uk/work/143
I recently saw some paintings og sewing machines by a UK artist.
Here's one of his works. He has a number of paintings including old sewing machines, so I thought you would enjoy having a look.